Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Sarah
|
|
Last Name
|
Brown
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/8/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2016-1490-MAPS
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Justice and Community Services and Divison of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Criminal Justice Program Specialist III
|
|
Topics
|
Classification
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether DOP’s determination regarding the best fit classification for Grievant’s position was arbitrary, capricious or clearly wrong.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 29-6-1; W. Va. Code R. § 143-1-3.19
|
|
Related Cases
|
Toney v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-460 (June 17, 1994); Kuntz/Wilford v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-301 (Mar. 26, 1997); Broaddus v. W. Va. Div. of Human Serv., Docket Nos. 89-DHS-606 through 609 (Aug. 31, 1990); Captain v. W. Va. Div. of Health, Docket No. 90-H-471 (Apr. 4, 1991); Dollison v. W. Va. Dep't of Employment Security, Docket No. 89-ES-101 (Nov. 3, 1989); Moore v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, Docket No. 94-HHR-126 (Aug. 26, 1994); Celestine v. State Police, Docket No. 2009-0256-MAPS (May 4, 2009)
|
|
Keywords
|
Classification; Pay Grade; Job Duties and Responsibilities; Position Description Form; Job Audit; Reallocation; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant filed a grievance against her employer alleging her position is improperly classified, seeking reallocation. It is Grievant’s assertion that her position should be classified as a Criminal Justice Program Manager, pay grade 20 and not a Criminal Justice Specialist 3, pay grade 16. Grievant’s employer, the West Virginia Division of Justice and Community Services, supports Grievant’s assertion and requested relief.
The Division of Personnel is the entity of WV State government charged with making classification determinations. Upon reviewing the documents related to Grievant’s position, and performing an on-site job audit, DOP determined that Grievant’s job duties fit into the classification of Criminal Justice Specialist 3, and did not opine that the best fit classification for the duties performed by Grievant was the Criminal Justice Program Manager classification. Respondent DJCS and Grievant did not prove that Respondent DOP’s classification decision was clearly wrong. It is understood that Grievant is a valued employee and does steadfast important work; nevertheless, pursuant to the relevant regulations and decisive factors it was not established that Grievant’s preferred classification was the “best fit” classification for the position as it currently stands. This grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again